That press release from the AFLPA is pretty ordinary work, I would imagine those relatively few AFL players with a brain might be asking some questions about what sort of outfit is trying to represent them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Funny how they're suddenly in a hurry to sort this out. They were in no hurry in June when the SCN were first issued. If they were so convinced of their innocence why didn't they respond then and not bother waiting for the outcome of the court action? Show us the evidence and we'll decide whether you've got enough to know what to do.I'm glad he did because players would have to be dealing with this during the season. Court case delayed this to after the season. It also highlighted the corruption, by Gil in particular, involved in writing that interim report. Also players were intimidated by SCNs when there was no evidence given because they didn't know what they were facing. Club saw most of the evidence from discovery orders ... and as a result players were given evidence as part of new SCNs.
Money well spent.
Hird is appealing because he's looking for a stick to go to town on some people with.
Selective memory from another hirdite. BECAUSE Hird said he would resign if the players were put on the register of findings.
Again with the semantics. The standard of proof is not 100%. This means a player can be convicted even if there is some doubt (not much, but some).Dude you're arguing semantics. What is proof? As a published academic in the fields of science and mathematics let me break it down for you. Proof is proof .... there are levels of proof. That is what is the case here. So to a certain level ASADA has to prove the case. They normally have an easy job when there is a positive test.
Dude you're arguing semantics. What is proof? As a published academic in the fields of science and mathematics let me break it down for you. Proof is proof .... there are levels of proof. That is what is the case here. So to a certain level ASADA has to prove the case. They normally have an easy job when there is a positive test.
Least they have paperwork!Pretty sure ASADA being the professional organisation that they had their brief completely ready to go before issuing the notices and can grant the players hearings immediately.
I mean surely there wasn't just 350 pages of a fishing expedition that hoped the players pled guilty for "backdated" bans.
Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.
And what is your witness?
Sorry, I'm confused who is more credible
- A "rogue" scientist
- An egomaniac coach who never saw a letter from the club doctor, but helped write it?
- The football club that has no records of what was pumped into 34 players
- Or the CEO that injects himself with tanning solution?
- Or the chairman that tries to null all the evidence?
Another possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now issue more SCNs.
But trustworthy enough to supply drugs to the players.I love this angle. Apparently you can't be a credible witness if you have been convicted of a crime. Better throw open the doors of Barwon Prison and let out all the blokes who have been put behind bars on the testimony of fellow crims!!!
Ps he is also a bio-chemist. But you and your mates keep high fiving with each other that he has been convicted of a crime in the past = can't be credible.
Nope, the matter won't end until the players sue the club. Which, incidentally, is what I'm looking forward to the most.
You realise you're talking about the AFL, yeah?interesting take on it. The only way a "lettuce leaf slap" can come is via a deal, not via a tribunal.
I'd say the players have clearly been given a "wink wink" that the evidence isn't going to hold up at the tribunal, like some of us have said for ages, and that they want to get it tested.
If they thought the evidence was strong the statement would be talking about approaching ASADA for deals. The writing is on the wall people.
You should be worried about the truth, not about sanction.
and if ASADA could send their briefs of evidence to the AFL at the same time that they put it up to the ADRV Panel, it will be even quicker, because the AFL does not rely on the ADRV Panel or a RoF entry to issue injunctions (in the absence of an AAF), so ASADA would merely be wasting time if they didn't follow the PA's suggestion
You've gotten the whole process a bit confused there.
ASADA present the results of the investigation to the ADRVP who must decide if a doping violation has possibly occurred. If so they refer the matter to the AFL.
ASADA presents the results of the investigation to the AFL, who at this point take control of the process. The General Counsel reviews the evidence and if he decides that a violation may have occurred issues Infraction Notices.
The burden of proof up until this point is reasonably low but note that no violation has been demonstrated and no player has been found guilty.
The next step is the Tribunal where the burden of proof is comfortable satisfaction. ASADA do not present the evidence in the Tribunal, the AFL does. This is the same as any Tribunal process for striking, rough conduct etc but ASADA have requested to be present and this has been agreed to by the AFL.
The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything. It has to show that a violation probably occurred or most likely occurred. The standard required is less than a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt has to be achieved. If the Tribunal thinks that Player X most likely was given TB4 then they will uphold the violation and adjuditcate on a penalty. A lot of criminal cases fail in court because juries are instructed that if there is a potential explanation other than that proposed by the prosecution then the jury must acquit.
That isn't the case here. There may be reasonable alternatives but if the Tribunal thinks that an anti-doping violation most likely occurred that is sufficient to make a guilty finding. Look at the conviction rates in the doping cases vs criminal cases and just from what I've remembered over the years, the anti-doping cases are almost always successful. People shouldn't underestimate the possibilities either way.
That said, I haven't seen any of the evidence that the ASADA investigation has uncovered so any comments about the strength of the case or otherwise are pretty pointless. Its worth noting that the ASADA case has been reviewed externally by experts in the field and given approval, so that would lead me to think there is at least a fair bit of substance to it.
you can't promise that because it is rubbish.And I can promise you that outside of football forums such as this no one will give a shit.
Correct.Excuse my ignorance but were ASADA compelled to include ALL the evidence in the SCN's against the players? Could they have provided a summary but kept some key evidence to them self to use at the hearing?
Okay. Not impossible. But can they explain the side effects? Really hard for any of us to guess without seeing the evidence. Also, the briefs are all tailored to individuals so that strategy might not work.Hopefully immediately put into a register of finding and then straight to the tribunal.
I have heard that one player will go first and it'll be shown that even if there is a circumstantial case that TB4 was at Essendon that is very different to showing that this individual was given TB4 ... when there was less than 34 doses ever at the club .... if circumstantial case against those 26 vials holds up .... despite the only witness who could put them there never being interviewed and the person who gave them to him saying he doesn't know where they went.
Then the other 33 will go as a group case and all get off on the same principle.
Bullshit.
"Proof" is with respect to the act of proving.
quoted for lols.You have shamed yourself so frequently and so comprehensively, lance, that you no longer know where the truth begins and your bullshit ends.
You can only be vindicated if you can prove you are innocent. All I am hearing is there is not enough proof that you doped.I'm extremely confident we will get off without bans, The Essendon football club will be completely vindicated.
But if the club claim not to know, then how could you know.I'm actually pretty comfortable about the truth. I think those that have haunted this board for most of the saga have been a long way from it.
Has to go to the ADRVP first.